Seventh Annual Meeting of the Internet Governance Forum
6-9 November 2012, Baku, Azerbaijan
9 November 2012
The following is the output of the real-time captioning taken during the Seventh Meeting of the IGF, in Baku, Azerbaijan. Although it is largely accurate, in some cases it may be incomplete or inaccurate due to inaudible passages or transcription errors. It is posted as an aid to understanding the proceedings at the session, but should not be treated as an authoritative record.
Chengetai Masango: Good morning, ladies and gentlemen, we are about to start our last main session: Taking stock and the way forward.
Just hang on.
So I would like to introduce our Chair for this session, Mr yashi , he is the associate professor of the computer science department, Ministry of Education, Western University, thank you.
CHAIR: Thank you very much for introducing me. I represent here the social society of Azerbaijan and I would like to welcome you to one of the last sessions in Baku, in Azerbaijan. Thank you very much for coming and listening to us.
This week we discuss the opportunities to maximise the opportunity for open and inclusive dialogue and exchange of ideas on critical issues. It was also opportunity to try to create opportunities to share the good practice and experiences, to listen, engage in dialogue and learn as well as identify key themes that could in future benefit from multi stakeholders perspective of the IGF.
This session taking stock and the way forward we will allow us to reflect on the overall of the 7th Internet Governance Forum, including the critical issues such as future of IGF and the principles related to the governance of internet.
To complete this complex task we will be guided by the sessions main moderator, Mr Peter Major and coordinator Constance Bomelaer, Internet Society, ISOC. Thank you very much.
MS BOMMELAER: Thank you Chair and good morning, everyone. We will begin this morning with an overview of the entire IGF.
As a new development for this year, we will hear a presentation of messages from the IGF cloud and many ambassadors and fellows have contributed to this exercise. These messages are a synthesis of what has happened, what has been said on line and in social media about the sessions and workshops this week.
We will then have a brief summary of each of the five main thematic sessions that have taken place in this room.
Next the moderators will take us through a discussion on principles and frameworks for the internet and internet policy inviting organisations from the floor to inform us about the way they had done their work on these principles.
I hope all participants will think about how the IGF might address these internet governance principles and prepare your questions please.
Last, we will discuss what is the way forward for the global internet community and for the IGF.
The moderators will introduce recommendations made by the CSTD working group on the future of the IGF. We are also only two years away from the WSIS plus ten, the ten year review of the world summit on the information society, which of course will have implications for the IGF.
Please remember the goal is for the facilitators this morning to encourage contributions for all of you in the audience, so please be ready, thank you.
PETER MAJOR: Thank you, Constance.
Good morning, ladies and gentlemen, we are going to have an extremely interesting session, I hope, today at least as far as the topics are concerned are very exciting and without much ado, I think we should start the first part of this session.
Let me introduce you to the two facilitators. Mr Bertrand de La Chapelle and the second facilitator is Mr Qusai Al Shatti, I will ask the facilitators to start the first part. Thank you.
MR DE LA CHAPELLE: Good morning, everybody, the purpose of this first segment is to ask rapporteurs for each of the main sessions is to come and give a two minute summary of the discussions and the possible messages that came from each of the each sessions, we have one rapporteur for each and I would like to ask first Janet Hofmann for the emerging issues session to come and give a report.
Is the microphone, the one that is outside?
Oh, just behind you, oh yes.
MS HOFMANN: Good morning, everybody, and thank you, Bertrand.
I am reporting from the main session on emerging issues. This session discussed two topics, the first was the role of the internet for disaster recovery and the second was about free flow of information, intellectual property rights and freedom of expression.
The lesson from the first topic is the following: the role of the internet must be understood in the context of the diversity of media available to generate and distribute information.
Digital and non digital media including such simple things as paper and pencil need to interact in order to create a local infrastructure that helps people to find each other and communicate vital information such as availability of water, roads et cetera.
Equally important, governments should prepare for disaster recovery by digitising public information, providing information in a machine readable format by providing equipment and offering training.
The summary of that is that the emphasis on flow of information is more important than that on information technology.
This second topic was supposed to address free flow of information, freedom of expression and intellectual property rights. Instead, the discussion revolved around common principles underlying information. In particular, the Panel discussed the principle of neutrality with regard to regulation.
As a general principle it sounds very reasonable to ask that regulation should be technologically neutral. We should, for example, not treat one type of software differently than others. In practice, however, this principle faces tricky problems, one is that each generation of media comes up with a different tradition of regulation. Broadcast media for example, has been heavily regulated, much more heavily, in fact, than digital media.
Second, we have different regulatory cultures across countries, privacy issues but also regulation of hate speech have been mentioned as examples of this second challenge. Against the background of media convergence, regulatory diversity creates many problems.
Representing these different regulatory cultures the Panel could not come up with a common view as to how to address these challenges. One panelist warned against agreeing on the lowest common denominator, whilst others emphasised the importance of free speech.
It seems clear that the problems will stay around for a longer time, thank you.
MR DE LA CHAPELLE: Thank you very much. Now I would like to ask Professor Rohan Samarajive to report on the Intenet Governance for Development IG40 session.
MR SAMARAJIVE: Thank you, the internet governance for development session consisted of three clusters: the pending expansion of top level domain space; secondly, the enabling environment including investment and innovation issues; and, thirdly, a related cluster on infrastructure.
On the first cluster, there seemed to be a general consensus on the need for the development of markets for ccTLD and gTLD domains. On the second and third clusters there was agreement that infrastructure development issues should be dealt with through multi stakeholder processes.
If there was a degree of difference in the audience it was with people particularly from the developing world seeing the second set of issues being more important than being a precondition for discussions of top level domain issues and such, a degree of sort of differences in emphasis.
On these second and third clusters, emphasis was placed on the need to create the proper conditions for investment and and environment conducive to decentralised innovation and, at the least, that governments, particularly at the international level, should be cautious about creating or putting into treaty level or other agreements anything that would be hostile to a greater investment and would be hostile to greater emphasis on innovation.
Thank you very much.
MR DE LA CHAPELLE: Thank you very much, we now get to the third main session dealing with access and diversity and I would like to ask Karen Rose to report on that session, please.
KAREN ROSE: Thank you and good morning it is a pleasure to report out on the access and diversity main session. I will keep my comments brief.
I would argue that the issue of access and diversity and the topics we discussed in this session are among the most important of the entire IGF because without access and diversity few of the other internet governance issues that we talk about in this forum have any real practical impact.
The MAG gave us five very challenging topics to cover in our three hours, those were infrastructure, mobile and innovation, the empowerment of women and people with disabilities, free flow of information and multilingualism. We aimed to discuss these from a perspective of promoting human, economic and social development in line with the theme of the conference.
While it would be impossible to provide an overview of any one session in detail, let me provide you with a couple of meta level takeaways.
In discussing the issues of access and diversity, we found we must simply go beyond talking about rolling out connective, particularly in a binary proposition way of those who have access and those who don't. Infrastructure and connectivity is obviously a key prerequisite and our Panel did discuss these in infrastructure and mobility sessions in particular.
However, it was recognised that in order for access and diversity to be meaningful, especially in the context of economic and social empowerment we need to talk about the internet as a value proposition and take a broader view of how to transform the unconnected into empowered internet users, users into internet creators and creators into innovators that will fuel the transformation of social and economic development.
A couple of key themes that emerged across the five areas we discussed was the need to discuss and talk about driving demand for the internet. How to make the internet experience a more relevant experience for users, including those that are vulnerable and under served and spurring the development of content.
What is more, it was noted and what emerged is that the full range of stakeholders have an important and mutually enforcing roles in this access and diversity eco system. For example, we touched on what, if somewhat of an untraditional role or the role of government in increasing content on e government services, in order not only to extend services and participation in the internet but also to drive demand for the internet itself. In addition we talked about NGO's providing last mile solutions.
What we discovered is that no one stakeholder has only one box or one role to play in this eco system.
One reflection is that it might be useful going forward to look at these issues from how to fuel the internet economy in general and empowerment in that internet economy.
We found that the sharing of experiences in particular and real world case examples across stakeholders was particularly useful. We also found that the interactions between, if I may say, more long time IGF participants and the new faces, including from the audience and remote participation were quite invigorating.
With that, Mr Chairman, I will close my comments and it was a pleasure to serve as a co moderator for the session. Thank you.
MR DE LA CHAPELLE: Thank you, Karen.
Fourth session, security, openness and privacy. I would like Alejanndro Pisanti to report on the session.
MR PISANTI: Thank you, Bertrand. This is Alejandro Pisanti, report from the session on security, openness and privacy. With the request I received from Constance Bommelaer, I am also including integrating some aspects of outside the main session which give out more complete picture.
Our seventh meeting of the Internet Governance Forum, held numerous discussions on the intertwined subjects of security, openness and privacy. The subject was the theme of our main session and workshops and also of interesting dynamic collisions, open forum and other discussions.
The brunt of the attention was dedicated to the relationship between security and privacy or, more broadly this year, between security and rights, among which privacy is present with its own weight, for its impact on other right as a symbol or even shorthand for this.
The 7th IGF included many more rights related sessions than any previous year. Statements about rights threatened by surveillance permeated a large part of the discussions.
Continuing from previous years, the balance between opposing trends as well as views of cyber security serving instead of opposing privacy and liberties went on being the focus of many debates.
In some of these debates clear cut cases and figures for state driven surveillance were shown. Some of these are staggering especially in view of the application, accelerated application of analytics and correlation, that allow the deanonymisation of data captured originally as anonymous. In many cases shown, IAN TO HERE the justification for the scale of data capture and retention cannot be readily found. The impact of surveillance has a chilling effect on the rights of free expression and free association was underlined as well.
Identity management; a key element of on line security and privacy was discussed. Among the most forward looking contributions is a view of evolution from top down owned in entity, authentication and authorisation frameworks that was identity management based on multiple sources which only require a low level of trust in each.
Openness was not intensely discussed in this intertwining of subjects, however it was the subject of many discussions, English libraries and librarians play an increasing role in the Internet Governance Forum and a dynamic coalition on internet core values inaudible]. The communities concerned with rights and with security have not been communicating enough. A call is made for further multi stakeholder dialogue open to many diverse needs and points of view. Thank you.
MR DE LA CHAPELLE: Thank you very much. Session 5 is critical internet resources, was co moderated by Bill Drake and Chris Disspain. Can Bill Drake take the floor to report?
MR W DRAKE: Good morning everyone, my name is Bill Drake from the University of Zurich and I was the co moderator with Chris Disspain of the critical internet resources session. The session covered 3 big topics all of which were fairly controversial in rather interesting and I think we had a lively and vigorous debate on each. The first one was the question of the new gTLD programme being pursued in ICANN and the ways in which some parties have received the prospect of 1900 new gTLD's entering the route in particular the concerns have been expressed by some stakeholders around the world not all of whom have been engaged in the ICANN process about particular types of strings such as highly generic terms like .book, or terms having a pertaining to a regulated industry or pertaining to culturally or religiously salient terms, or geographical terms and so on.
So we talked a little bit about how some parties perceive the possibility of these new strings being entered into the route and what are the procedures that ICANN have put in place for parties to be able to raise concerns and challenge these decisions. We talked in particular at some length about the role of governments and the government advisory committee, and whether it's authority was sufficiently strong or too strong vis a vis the finalisation of these sorts of decisions within ICANN and I think it is fair to say that was a topic that gave rise to robust disagreement amongst some parties which is entirely normal and perfectly fine.
The second topic that we talked about was a perhaps even more controversial one and a kind of an emerging issue and this the notion of establishing markets, secondary markets for IPV 4 numbers. There was apparently a workshop, a feeder workshop the prior day that had looked into this in some detail and it had generated quite a lot of heat and some of that carried over into this discussion. And of course the question is whether, having markets and using markets signals to reallocate a scarce resource could serve some purpose alongside the existing mechanisms for the allocation of IP numbers; or whether this was in some way going to undermine the existing frameworks or being consistent with the global public interest more generally. Parties had very different views on that topic as one might expect and obviously this is something we will return to again somewhere down the line because there are those who think the issue will not go away and that parties will continue to push for establishing some sorts of markets like this.
The third and last topic that we discussed pertained to the upcoming World Conference on International Telecommunications; that will be held by the International Telecommunication Union in Dubai in December 2013. There the ITU members will renegotiate a longstanding international treaty, the international telecommunications regulations and there has been much discussion as to whether those regulations might in some various ways impact the internet and indeed serve as a form of kind of multilateral internet governance. We had a great deal of discussion in particular on the topic of proposals that had been made by the some parties with regard to the economic organisation of peering and interconnection and the notion that perhaps one could move towards a centre pace sp sort of approach and have quality of service and other kinds of objectives built into the regulatory framework. There is also a Meta question that pertains to the boundary lines between telecommunications and the internet more generally in an era of convergence, when public switch telephone networks are all moving to be based on IP chord networks.
There are a number of other issues as well; how broad the regulations should apply to which actors etc. etc. So this was the subject of great interest on the interest of many parties and gave rise to a lot of vigorous debate as well. I think there was a general consensus in the room, among the folks here, that the regulations should not extend deeply into the internet environment and should really pertain to the traditional realm of telecommunications administrations and recognised operating agencies, providing international Telecom services as they are traditionally understood. But of course, this is an on going issue and we will have to see what is decided in Dubai by governments in December.
So those were the 3 topics that were covered and I think we had a really good debate on all of them.
Mr DE LA CHAPELLE: Thank you Bill, the last segment for this recording; no I am sorry, this is at the moment the reporting on the main session unless you are replacing Vladamir Radnovic. So I would like to call on Vladamir Radnovic to give us messages from the IGF Cloud, ie. the twitter verse and the comments that people made on line during the meeting.
VLADIMIR RADUNOVIC: Thank you Bertrand, my name is Vladimir Raunovic. I was in charge of co ordinating the efforts of ISOC Diplo fellows sp which were working on reports on discussions and trends in the cloud meaning the tweets Bloggs and various other posts on line. This is the first time we are doing it, I am quite happy that we also included it and here is why. In the past 7 days we had amazing 3,000 tweets related to the IGF; in only past 24 hours we have, we have about 1,500 tweets reaching out to approximately 2.8 million followers on twitter, which is an amazing figure. so to speak we did have a parallel IGF, with open and sometimes even heated discussions.
The integral cloud content which was aggregated is available on line, you can find it at IGF2012.diplomacy.edu.
A couple of highlights from the discussions; there were raised concerns on freedoms and rights on line including the on line rights and freedoms in the host country. They were discussions, heated discussions on the enhanced co operation with the majority of people noting that the IGF is an excellent example of the enhanced co operation model.
There were questions whether the internet is a human right and whether it should be considered a human right and the debates were very polarised there on both sides.
There were a lot of comments about WCIT, the ITU meeting in Dubai and especially about the speech of the Secretary General of ITU, Hamadoun Toure at the IGF opening and in completion with some of the recent interviews which are available on line.
There were also other topics which are not that heated, among other, women and children empowerment through the internet. Searching for a better term than multi stakeholders but also defining who are stakeholders and what should be their roles. And finally the mentions of the internet for the disaster relief.
That will be it in short and I hope we are going to continue with these reports next year, to walk the talk, talk about the internet on the internet. Thank you.
Mr DE LA CHAPELLE: Thank you Vladimir, this concludes the first element of reporting. I will now pass the moderation button to Qusai and encourage the members of the audience to also contribute on their taking out from workshops that they are participating. Qusai.
Sheryll to here
MR AL SHATTI: I would like to open after hearing the facilitators with their excellent feedback from the main sections of the 7th IGF in Baku, I would like to give the floor to the audience for question and answer and I will start with my dear colleague, please, go ahead.
MS CHATURVEDI: Good morning, my name is Subi Chaturvedi. I teach journalism and media studies in New Delhi. I also run a foundation called Media for Change. This was my first IGF. I was here in the capacity of academia and civil society. I really want to use this opportunity to thank people who facilitated my presence here because academia and civil society often get left out of the discussion. I think it is a life changing moment for me and Facebook has these events, life events. I think this is going to be one of the moments for me because I know Vint kept hinting at the fact that Google hangouts work but we tell him it is not nearly the same experience.
There are just three quick points I want to make and I do believe I would be failing in my duty if I didn't say this today because what we do here today as a teacher, I think we owe it to our generations to come to make a stronger effort because Bill just hinted at the debate around ITRs.
My first intervention really is we are here today at the IGF which is clearly one of the most transparent multi stakeholder accessible processes and it is clearly bottoms up. If we take this to a platform which is not inclusive, which would not have people such as ourselves, I don't know, we could, if possibly the Chair could do a show of hands, we would know how many of us are going to be there in some of the most crucial decisions are going to be taking place. That is one.
To use this platform, vis a vis, a platform which is not multi stakeholder, which is not bottoms up and is an inter governmental body facilitating platform.
The second, I have a submission to make, and I am going to make this quick, I believe that one national IGF and there are about 200 countries, it is going to take another 300, 200 years to get to each and every country for a national IGF, I don't think that is enough.
The internet and the speed and the rapidness of change is so fast that we need to do a series of events, multiple events, regional events, national events, we have had an Arab spring, we have had a bit of an Indian summer, if we could look at an internet governance movement. At the risk of sounding repetitive I will go no and say what we need today is an internet governance movement.
At one of the sessions I was in I was asked what is at stake. I think what is at stake is internet and freedom, two of the most important things we cherish and care about.
My third and last submission I will wrap it at that is the fact a lot of us worry about dissemination and what we take away and the way forward because this is closing and we are looking into the crystal ball and trying to figure out what more we can do, if we could institutionalise best practices, if we could look at creating a platform where regional and national experiences could feed into each other, not necessarily become similar, retain their differences, retain the fact they are special but share learning and create bridges. That is what maybe the MAG or the IGF secretariat could do for us, facilitate dissemination of information.
Thank you, everyone, for giving me this opportunity to be here and meet such amazing wonderful colleagues and peers and be a part of this experience, but I do believe that we owe it to ourselves to make this into a movement and keep knocking at the doors to preserve something that is so special and important, thank you.
MR AL SHATTI: Thank you, any comments from the floor?
Okay, that looks okay.
PARMINDER SINGH: Thank you, Qusai, just to keep the dialogue moving and get more people warmed up to make events, I thought I should step in. But meanwhile I would like to I am saw the wrap ups, from the different sessions and I recognised that the working group on IGf improvements had very few real recommendations but one of them was that, that the whole agenda should be structured around clear policy questions and people should respond to those policy questions and frame alternatives.
I did not see it in happen in that manner and I do wonder why would MAG not have already taken notice of those recommendations and started working on it. I do realise the recommendations get finalised when the UN General Assembly would adopt them around December but I mean this is something which already inside the MAG people have started to talk about and was there an attempt to do it or finally in implementation it didn't happen or (inaudible) on that particular recommendation of the working group, thank you.
MR AL SHATTI: Thank you, Parminder.
Any further comments from the floor?
MR MIKENEN: sp Excuse me, morning everyone, I am Jonus Mikenen.
NEW SPEAKER: I will take this question first.
MR MIKENEN: It has been quite many years since young people started wondering how we could be more active in IGF and I have to say that things have gone much better over a couple or few years and I would like to just mention a few things, what we have noted this year about youth participation and internet governance.
It has been wonderful to see how much more actively we have discussed youth, their importance in these discussions, taking opinions into account and acknowledging that they actually have something important to say.
But as some feedback to the IGF in general, I would sadly still have to say that IGF still suffers from sort of a youth showcasing so instead of having many young people as participants in general, there seem to be some panels which are specifically made for young people, as is @here they are, look here they are@, and this is something that really shouldn't be there, young people should be out there and going to the workshops they are interested in.
So what is stopping them going to the workshops they are interested in? It is mostly because the essence of IGF that it goes all around the world, which means travelling, it is in English and not everything is translated. I think it is especially blocks young people from joining because of language barriers because it always needs some sort of a backing organisation or a funded project like the youth IGF project we have seen here, to actually get them on location.
It is getting better of course now we have seen Nordic Youth, we have seen UK, we have NetMission Asia. It is getting better and better I think. In general, I think IGF could do something to make it easier to join here. For example, I don't see local youth here, it could have been possible in many situations but IGF I suppose it is just not marketed as saying, @Hey, we have this important event happening in your country, in your city and this concerns your normal behaviour, everyday life or at least will in several years. Would you be interested to come and share your views? Especially as there are many people from abroad who don't know how you behave and what you want from the internet?@
A few more points is that, where people are discussing youth or even children, I would want to stress that especially there young people should be there. I have been into numerous child protection panels but you don't see young people there. You don't see children there.
I think it will probably it may get very much on the wrong path if we don't actually check what the children and young people want or what they are after.
That is pretty much it for the general picture, I do want to say copyright anecdote though. It appeared that we discussed a lot about copyright and blocking and several of these issues we are discussing here with adults here as well. It seems that youth want attribution and access came out to be a very specific point. Also, young people should be able to learn the positives and negatives of the internet, they should not be restricted by the blocking.
MR AL SHATTI: If you can wrap up, please.
MR MIKENEN: This comes up with every discussion with young people. Thank you.
MR AL SHATTI: I will just give the floor to my dear colleague, Peter Major, to reply to one of the questions that was presented from the floor, please go ahead.
PETER MAJOR: Thank you, I just want to reflect on the intervention of Parminder concerning the implementation of the CSTD recommendations, the working group recommendations.
Parminder, you rightly pointed out that the recommendations are about to be accepted by the General Assembly in the coming days so even though we really wanted to conform to the recommendations eithin the MAG, we weren't mandated to do so, so we had to go with what we had.
I can promise you that in case and I hope it will be accepted we shall try and implement most of the recommendations, if not all. I hope that in the next IGF you won't have the same question thank, you.
MR AL SHATTI: Thank you, Peter. Another one?
MS CHATURVEDI: Yes, I know I have had my turn and I don't really want to be too greedy, but I think
NEW SPEAKER: I am... from the internet,.
MS CHATURVEDI: Shiva , I will wrap up. Just a tiny little intervention, I think the point the gentleman raised about the question of involving youth, because this is about the internet. We have put together the first in the IGF and we dedicated out of the two days, the first half day session to a debate which involved students from across 24 leading technology and communication institutes, I do believe when we asked this question which is about protecting vulnerable communities like women and children, a lot of the debates leave the youth out and leave these very stakeholders out.
If they have not come to us, we will have to go to them. We will have to because this is innovation, this is bottoms up, we will have to create events that engage them, whether it is through debates, whether it is through public participations or public hearings which involve the youth, we are at www.iegc.in and I would request what we have done is put together a read out which is a summary of all the sessions we have done and the processes.
If the MAG could coordinate with some of the other IGFs and do a similar process oriented document when we learn from some of the experiences and also make an active effort at engaging with both youth and gender. I saw a lot of panels with gender balance some of them had more women than the others but this is one submission I had. Thank you for giving me the floor again, thank you.
MR AL SHATTI: Please.
MR SUBRAMANIAN: I am Siva Subramanian from Internet Society, Chenna. There are some participation issues discussed and some talk about the disconnect between national IGF's, regional IGF's and the global IGF and some language issues discussed. The solution could all come from going on line, going to the internet. If we have between IGFs, if we have a continuous Internet Governance Forum 24/7 on line as some kind of an expanded Google hangout, for all participants to continuously interact, issue by issue, in an organised way, I think all this disconnect could be removed and we can have some continuous activity and can have real outcome, thank you.
MR AL SHATTI: Thank you, thank you.
Please, go ahead.
MR TSHISHIMBI: Hello, my name is Etienne, I speak in French.
We are talking about access here and for a long time now about two years, I have been looking at the IGF Secretariat website and I always notice that it is only in one language. This is a real problem for the involvement of those who do not use English for communication, so the recommendation that I should like to make is as follows.
Really the website of the IGF secretariat needs to be made multilingual. The documents on the website need to be translated into at least the six United Nations languages.
Another point that I should like to add relates to the general public communications campaign. A few years ago we saw an awareness promotion campaign on AIDS. It started 20 years ago. That AIDS awareness campaign worked. The whole world were made aware of the dangers of AIDS, why can't we copy what they did for AIDS in a real campaign on internet governance? Thank you very much.
MR AL SHATTI: Thank you, I think we are approaching the end of the question and answer session, therefore allow me to give the floor to my colleague Bernard to have an intervention to wrap up the question and answer session.
Mr DE LA CHAPELLE: Actually, the idea is not to to make a summary of things, one of the objectives of this session is also to try to aggregate messages and short elements and we need to improve this system on an ongoing basis to facilitate the drafting of the report of the Chairman at the end of the IGF.
I would like to practice by example by providing a few key words that I think have structured some of the things that I have attended or participated in. One key word was clearly @enhanced co operation@ which became less of a taboo thanks to a pre event.
It has been discussed in the IGF and significant progress I think has been made in both the understanding and how it will move forward in the IGF and outside.
The second key word that has not been mentioned but that has percolated is @big data@. Big data and the cloud are the two themes that have connections and that maybe taken into account for future discussions in setting up the agenda of the IGF.
The third element was some new principles are emerging that are specific to the internet. They are not accepted by everyone, they are not agreed upon by everyone but they are moving one step further in terms of implementation, that includes things like the Council of Europe no transboundary harm principle, which is not accepted but is emerging or the question that the Brazilian Marco Civile is envisaging regarding the neutrality of the logical layer of the internet in issues of blocking.
Finally, the WCIT has been a big issue allowing people to educate themselves about what this process was and what its challenges and opportunities were.
I think it is an illustration of one of the missions of the IGF, which is to monitor, as its mandate requires, whether other processes and organisations follow or not and to what extent the WSIS principles in discussing policy issues and governance issues.
MR AL SHATTI: Thank you, Bertrand.
In a nutshell or in a synthesis of what the facilitators or the moderators of the session said so far, I think when it comes to emerging issues we have talked about the role of the internet and disaster recovery and the importance to understand the role of media in enabling people to communicate and connect with each other and with a focus on information flow as an important factor when it comes to disaster relief activities.
Also in the same section, technical neutrality has been discussed in terms of regulations, where it should be maintained and preserved.
Moving to the IG4D Ian to here this, the key points focused on the importance to develop a domain name industry not only on the level of GTLD's, but also on the level of ccTLD, the discussion also forecast in the developing of infrastructure focused mainly on ISP's and whether the process, should be multi stakeholder and inclusive.
The last thing was the point that was discussed creating the proper conditions for investment and the right environment for innovation.
Moving from there, going to access and diversity, major issues were discussed relating to infrastructure, women, and the free flow information the session focused on the access, should go beyond the need to provide connectivity, should discuss internet as a value, as a value proposition for economical and social transformation.
As well as the role of governments and enrolling the demand of the internet and the role of civil society in doing the last mile and in that respect.
Moving from there for security and privacy, the relationship between security and rights was the major point of discussion. Many have discussed that rights have been violated by surveillance, identity management was discussed also as a tool of security and many have expressed that the issues of rights and security has not been addressed enough within the IGF.
Going to the CIR session, one of the major points that has been discussed that not everybody was invited to be involved in the process of gTLD that was initiated by the ICANN. Many have also discussed the role of government within the GAC in this process and the issue of secondary market for IPV4 was also discussed and whether having secondary market will be in the interests of the public or the users of the internet, not only for IPV4 but for any upcoming resources.
The third issue was within the light of the WCIT and that would regulation impact the internet especially within peering and interconnectivity and there should be a borderline between communication and the internet and our view is that regulation should not extend deeply into the internet area.
Moving now to the IGF Cloud, the IGF Cloud discussed major points like the on line freedom, discussion on enhanced co operation, Human Rights and the WCIT of course was a part of the discussion on the IGF Cloud.
To wrap up obviously you have a discussion from the floor on having something related to IGF movement, the disconnectivity between the regional, national and the global IGF and a point that has been discussed about an institutionalising best of practices. So a synthesis in a nutshell in five minutes what the discussion, summary of the discussion that took place.
This is the end of the first part really of setting the scene session and I will be passing the floor to my dear colleague, Anne Carblanc. Thank you.
MS CARBLANC: Good morning, everybody. It is a pleasure to be here. We are going to discuss statements of principles and recommendations related to internet governance. We all know that societies increasingly rely on the use of the internet for a wide range of essential economic activities but the benefits of the internet go far beyond its economic benefits.
Worldwide connectivity is a catalyst for social welfare and for development, from education and health, to participation and democratic reform in all countries, but for the internet to continue to be this incredible platform for innovation, social progress and economic growth, access to and free flow of information is vital, as is the protection of fundamental rights and other essential values such as freedom of expression, of association, protection of privacy, of children, of consumers.
I wonder if someone would disagree at this stage while (inaudible) the discussion.
There are many principles and frameworks related to internet governance. The Civil Society internet governance focus provides links to 15 of such statements of rights or principles for the Internet Society or economy but there may be many more. We don't really know how many.
Those which are most frequently referred to exist in English and as one of the inter (inaudible) said language may be a barrier to our knowledge.
When we look at all this text we can see differences, differences in the mode of development. Some of this initiatives are unilateral, other are collaborative or even multi stakeholder. I would cite the Brazil (inaudible) internet as one multi stakeholder, a very interesting model.
The source varies. Some emanate from international organisations, like the UN; some emanate from governments, like the UK principles for use of cyberspace, from civil society, like the Geneva Declaration on Internet Freedom, by Human Rights defenders and Civil Society or from business with the ICC policy statement on the freedom of expression and the free flow of information on the Internet.
The approach or the perspective also varies, whether it is economic like the OECD or Human Rights oriented like the Council of Europe.
The focus also varies. Some of these statement are constitution type texts. Again, the Brazil mar quideinternet sp is one such internet bill of rights. Others are sectoral like the international Code of Conduct for information security proposed to the United Nations by Russia, China and other countries.
At high level, however, there are some commonalities among the different sets of statements and recommendations. For instance, several refer to international founding instruments like the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
This is the case of the WSIS declaration which makes a specific reference to the right to freedom of expression in the information society.
But this theme is also developed by the APC Internet Rights Charter along with internet access for all and privacy. These three principles, along with the global free flow of information, openness and multi stakeholder co operation are present in other instruments, including the Declaration of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe on internet governance principle and the OECD recommendation on internet policy making principles.
The Brazilian marquiz civil d'internet sp brings the principles of inclusive internet and access to public information, transparency and social participation which in turn but enough for me.
I propose that we hear more on some of these initiatives perhaps from the assistant. First, however I would like to call on Wolfgang Kleinwächter to present a brief synthesis of these principles for internet governance.
MR KLEINWÄCHTER: Thank you very much, Anne. Indeed, we have a proliferation of principles. I think ten year ago people were very sceptical about principle because this was like an invitation for regulation and doing it in a very early time and to probably then to block further developments but now ten years later we have learnt something and I think there is a broad recognition that in principle, principles are not bad. If they are very high level, if they are non binding and if they include all stakeholders, they could give us a guideline and could strengthen the commitment of the various stakeholders to follow, you know, certain very general, very general rules like internet should promote Human Rights, internet should be free and open, internet policy should be transparent and based on the multi stakeholder model, the architecture should be end to end, internet should be safe and secure very general principles where everybody can agree.
Indeed, you know, this very general principles are already reflected in nearly all these documents which were just outlined here from the OECD to the Council of Europe from Bill Hakes sp principles to the G7 principles, to the various other groups who have done this. I have counted 25 and more declarations of principles meanwhile.
We have reached now after two or three years' discussion of principles a moment when we have to think about, you know, what is the next step. What we see is now a patchwork regulation where everybody just picks the principle he likes, though it like principle shopping because we have too many of them meanwhile.
The proposal we discussed in the internet governance caucus is it would be very useful to have, as a first step, a compendium so that we have an overview about what is going on and then to figure out in a second step where we have consensus among these vary principles where we have rough consensus and where we have disagreement.
Probably in the process of the next three or four years we could move forward to such a framework of commitment on a very general level which includes all Member States of the United Nations and all stakeholders because these are the weak points of a lot of these existing declarations, you know.
I chaired the working group in the Council of Europe. The Council of Europe was very open for multi stakeholder involvement so we were listening to Civil Society, to the technical community, to the private sector but at the end of the day it was the Council of Ministers which adopted the document and the Council of Europe has only 47 Member States, so it is not universal.
What we have to have at the end of the process is a universal document which includes all Member States of the United Nations and all stakeholders, not a governmental declaration. There is no need for another governmental declaration. We need a multi stakeholder declaration where we have the commitment from the Chinese and the American government, the commitment from ICANN and the ITF, the commitment of Google and Facebook and the commitment of Human Rights Watch and the APC that they agree that the internet should be free, open, transparent, multi stakeholder, safe, secure, et cetera.
I think this is a challenge we are facing now and I think the MAG is probably, for the moment, the only place where this can be further discussed in detail because the MAG has a certain legitimacy, the MAG members are appointed by the Secretary General of the United Nations and the MAG is a purely multi stakeholder body.
Do not send it back to an intergovernmental body. This make no sense. We have to move forward in this unchartered territory of an emerging multi stakeholder policy model and I think this is the way forward and my understanding is it would be good to go to the concrete proposals now so that we have more knowledge about the ideas behind the various proposals. Thank you very much.
MS CARBLANC: Thank you very much, Wolfgang, for this brief intervention but very passionate and perhaps convincing.
Please, can you give your name and introduce yourself.
MR CARIBÉ: My name is João Carlos Caribé. I am from Brazil from (inaudible) and I bring some news about MAGs view of internet and so this is not big news, not good news.
I speak on behalf of three organisations of the civil society of Brazil, Article 19 and (Brazilian).
Framework for internet rights, the multi stakeholder interactive model strials for Internet. The Brazilian Parliament (inaudible) Civil Society by approving at the same time two cyber crime laws instead of guarantees for civil liberties on the internet that is in discussion.
We activists and the Civil Society organisation in Brazil had believed that the mar quidevil was an example of the best practice in the digital environment and showed how Brazil was in the vanguard in terms of rights and freedom on internet.
Regarding the participatory process of the (inaudible) discussions and the conception as well as the content of the proposal itself it seemed that this was on no going back highway.
Unfortunately, this project is seriously restricted by the powerful lobby strong of economic (inaudible) of foreign companies for the agenda for ITO are fighting hard against net neutrality and the cultural industry press is struggling for a mechanism that will allow greater cultural over the right of publishing over the internet.
This has called the adoption for two laws of cyber crimes and the powers of the (inaudible) again, again and again.
Today the internet in Brazil is less free than yesterday. For this reason we called international community to support our striving for the maintenance of this regulatory framework so expected by all. Thank you.
Article 19 and movement maga. Thank you.
MS CARBLANC: Thank you very much Mr Caribé.
Is there anyone else in the audience who would like to take the floor?
MR PISANTE: Good morning again, my name is Alejandro Pisante from Mexico. What I just read heard from Wolfgang Kleinwachter makes me both very interested and more than a little bit concerned. I will reply very briefly.
Let 10,000 commandments bloom and collide and we will realise at some point that it may be a fool's errand, an unachievable task to get to a single set of principles at the highest level, that is not the same as the single set of principles at the lowest layer of the Internet which basically says interoperability, openness, end to end principle and not try for the internet to be the playing ground where we solve problems that have not been able to solve in layer 8.
The final aspect that concerns me very much is that in a logical consequence from what Wolfgang has stated, it would seem that he would like to see the MAG, the multi stakeholder advisory group, become the constitutional assembly of cyber space. I think it is not equipped for that.
MS CARBLANC: Thank you very much. There may be questions in the audience but before we come to questions, is there any comment from someone, representatives of organisations or governments or civil society who have particapated to elaborating statements? Thank you very much.
MR BERGER: From UNESCO. Okay.
I am Guy Berger Director for Freedom of Expression and Media Development at UNESCO.
I thought I should just update people here about UNESCO's position on this question of principles and codes because it was an issue.
I think many people here will know that UNESCO started working on information ethics already back in July 1995, talking about legal and ethical aspects of access to electronic information and then was involved in the three info ethics Congresses that took place and subsequently UNESCO got the responsibility for WSIS action line 10, C10, ethical dimensions of the information society.
Following that, various regional info ethics conferences were organised in UNESCO's regions. They took place in Dominica, France, Mauritania, South Africa and Vietnam.
The results of those regional conferences began to inform other work which included work by the 28 member states sub body of UNESCO called the Information for All Programme which developed a code of ethics for the Information Society.
This code is based well, it says its foundation is the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and it points out that the code needs to be multi faceted in line with the internet being multi faceted and multi stakeholder.
The code was presented to the UNESCO general conference of 195 Member States which noted the work on the code by the IFAC but did not adopt the code.
More recently then UNESCO has been working on more specific things such as the relationship between privacy and freedom of expression rights and ethics therein, including the global study that we launched at a workshop here.
The scope of ethical issues of the internet are obviously very vast and will continue to change.
As far as UNESCO goes we are not doing a lot of further work on big principles as such but we are trying to continue to promote debate around these issues, around ethics and principles and doing stuff around promoting info ethics, particularly at school in media and information literacy.
We also will continue to work with partnerships and promote debates such as multi stakeholder events. Particularly, I would just like to draw people's attention here to the WSIS plus ten review event on 25 to 27 February in Paris next year which will include specific workshops on ethics in regard to the Information Society.
That is the future orientation of the work of UNESCO on this question. Thank you.
MS CARBLANC: Thank you very much.
There was someone on my left.
MS THACI: sp Hello, my name is Elvenie Thaci sp and I work for the Council of Europe. I would like to highlight one of the dimensions of the Council of Europe internet governance principles and that is their openness dimension.
The Council of Europe principles were adopted by the Committee of Ministers, 47 Member States did adopt them, but they do genuinely offer a very distinct open dimension and this is embedded in the letter of those principles and in the spirit of that declaration.
I will just highlight two elements which demonstrate this. First, the principles explicitly state that they do not represent an isolated action by an intergovernmental organisation. Instead, they build on the (inaudible) different internet community have progressively developed through dialogue, through efforts to pronounce the core values of the internet through policies and guidelines on different aspects of internet governance.
Secondly, the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe explicitly stated that this was the Council of Europe's contribution to an ongoing inclusive, collaborative and open process of development of internet governance principles.
The Committee of Ministers said that this does not stop here at this particular statement. It invited instead all stakeholders to embrace the principles in the exercise of their own responsibilities.
By the way, the Council of Europe principles exist in four languages, in English, French, Russian and German. They are available on the Council of Europe website.
Two words about the follow up to the principles. In spring this year the Council of Europe adopted an internet governance strategy for 2012 2015 and there it mentions as an action line the development of a framework of understanding or commitments based on Council of Europe's values and principles on internet governance.
We will start very soon looking at the implementation of this action line the Steering Committee, the Council of Europe Steering Committee on Media and Information Society will discuss next steps at the end of November this year. Thank you very much.
MS CARBLANC: Thank you very much. Any other intervention on statement set of principles from the floor before we take the questions? No more? Do you want to intervene?
FRANKLIN NETTO: Yes, but not specifically on this statement but then I would wait will be will be.
MS CARBLANC: Perhaps now we can take questions then. Thank you.
PARMINDER SINGH: I am sorry to take the mic again because the first time I came in because there was nobody coming up. This is more substantive.
I am Parminder from IT for Change. Partly it is about principles statements. We had a Dynamic Coalition on Framework of Internet Principles formed at Athens and which later merged with the Dynamic Coalition on Internet Rights and now there is a Dynamic Coalition on Internet Rights and Principles which has already an operating statement and a short statement of ten principles which has been introduced at various times and I will not talk about it but if there is time later I will talk about it because I have two other issues which I wanted to comment on.
About principles, the one issue I want to talk about is that we have some plurilateral groups making internet principles. OECD has made last year principles for internet policy making and Council of Europe, we have heard, have made principle for internet policy making by perhaps some another name. They all welcome initiatives but I think it is important when these plurilateral initiative are going ahead they should not oppose multilateral UN based initiatives of a similar kind, of similar intergovernmental processes, taking multi stakeholder consultation along with no difference in the model and I want to insist no difference in the model.
The same people resist those very badly, bad mouth them and support plurilateral things and those plurilateral principles then are actually taken to other countries and promoted as, you know, you take it or otherwise internet eco system is too global for you to want to fall off it. That is the main thing I want to talk about.
Second, about Wolfgang's proposal that MAG should take up I do not often have occasion to agree with my dear friend Alejandro but I am going to agree with him on this point.
I have been a great supporter of recommendations, working groups by IGF and all those things. These were the proposals which we put forward to the working group which Dr Mayor headed.
These proposals when we put forward were not accepted, they were rejected by the working group and therefore they are not in the recommendations of the working group.
I would hope in the same way they are meticulously are observing that the policy issues would not be taken up until the actual GRA recommendation comes they would also not go beyond the recommendations of the working group on IGF and not do working groups of the MAG, not set up MAG inter principle speaking body.
I repeat I am a great supporter of these things but these proposal made by us were rejected by the working group and they should now be adhered to, thank you.
MS CARBLANC: Thank you very much. Next.
JEREMY MALCOLM: I would like to bring to everyone's attention one of the outcomes of a meeting called Best Bits which took place on the weekend prior to the IGF and this was a meeting of 50 Civil Society groups and experts who came together.
One of the things that we were very careful to ensure was that it was a geographically diverse group and, indeed, we had participants from 20 countries from Armenia to Venezuela and, indeed, there was a very high level of balance between the global north and south and this lends a greater legitimacy to the outputs of the meeting.
We had two outputs. The one that is relevant to the discussion at the moment is a resolution relating to internet rights and principles and, in general, it does align with what Wolfgang put forward, that there is an appropriate role for the IGF in developing a compendium of internet statements of principles and the exact wording of the declaration that we made at the meeting is as follows:
"We call on the IGF to develop an IGF level multi stakeholder statement of internet governance drawing on existing statements of rights and principles developed by various stakeholders for presentation to the 2013 meeting of the IGF in Indonesia."
While the timescale is debatable, we did have a consensus on that, so whilst I acknowledge the concern that we should let 100 flowers bloom and 100 schools of thought contend, the problem is that if everyone can come up with their own statement of principles then there is no comparability, there's no accountability, there's no common standard and certainly there's no legitimacy of coming up with your own statement of principles if you want other people to follow it.
The only way in which we can have legitimacy and comparability is if we collaborate as a multi stakeholder group towards consensus on certain principles that are not in dispute by anyone so that is something that we would like to see the IGF work towards to prove its utility as the most appropriate, indeed the only global body with a remit over the entire internet governance arena, not just over naming and numbering, not just over telecommunications networks but the whole of internet governance.
Certainly the IGF is the most appropriate body to undertake such an exercise. Thank you.
MS CARBLANC: Thank you very much for this intervention.
MR NETTO: Thank you very much, my name Franklin Netto. I am from the Brazilian government and, as I said, my words will not be only referred to the statements of principle. I will take the opportunity in the name of the efficiency here of the process to comment on other issues but I will start by that.
We also think that certainly the IGF would have a very important role on crafting these statements of principle. I would not see any better place where you could get at the positions in all the richness that all the stakeholder can bring to the process in the IGF.
It was mentioned that to contribute to this process we could feed also from national experiences and it was mentioned in mar quiz devil of the internet of Brazil, the civil framework of the internet. Unfortunately, we could not yet approve mar quidevil of the internet in the Congress.
As I have been stating here in all my in the opportunities that I had to talk about the mar quidevil it was an initiative of the executive branch of power listening to all the sectors of the society and attending to the demands of the sectors and trying to put between that classic needs to balance the security and privacy, trying to start by the guaranteeing privacy and the rights of the citizen. But, like I said, the Marco Civile is in Congress now and as in all democratic systems the executive branch of power does not have control over congress and we expect that it can be voted as soon as possible and approved.
Commenting on some aspects that were also mentioned before we are very happy to hear that after this meeting here in Baku the enhanced cooperation concept again is not a taboo as the process. In some recent years it has gained this taboo fashion.
Then we would like to commend the ISOC and the other organisations for having had this pre event before the IGF meeting where many stakeholders could bring their opinions about enhanced co operation.
The Brazilian position on this issue is very clear, I mean that this a very important outcome of the WSIS process, of the Tunis Agenda and it was very unfortunate if the process ended as it ended last May in Geneva where we almost had the opportunity to really have a body to discuss, a platform to discuss the concept and to hear the stakeholders about how we operationalise this concept.
I think events like this help clarify the positions and show that when we talk about enhanced co operation we are talking about a multi stakeholder process, we are talking about a process that wants to hear from the contributions of all the interested parties to really allow the whole process should be to result in public policies. This is the outcome of the process.
Enhanced co operation is something that was not very well defined in the Tunis Agenda but the outcome is very clear. The outcome of the process you have public policy goals and objectives.
Since we have such a clear objective, we should continue to talk and to discuss to see how we can get there.
One important point that was mentioned is that the IGF would greatly benefit if it could feed from the regional IGFs, if it could have some articulate process, a systemic process, through which the IGF process could feed and bring their results to the IGF in the benefit of all the stakeholders.
One comment, I mean this was my first IGF, the first time I participate in this forum. It was a wonderful opportunity to do networking and to especially as a government official to be in a more open space where you can learn and where we can listen to the opinions of the other stakeholders but we consider that one of the the needs of the process that it should resonate more in the other bodies and this comes to the, like I said before, to the results of that, to the findings of that working group on improving the IGF.
We really do think that we should find ways whereby the results of the IGF could be systematised, it could organised and could be in this more systemic way resonating the other fora, be it in the governmental realm, in the private sector realm, or in the Civil Society realm. Thank you very much.
MS CARBLANC: Thank you very much. Before I take the last intervention, I am asking the organisers whether we are a little bit behind schedule.
MS BOMMELAER: I think that is fine. So, please, Ayesha Hassan, if you would like to start with your question. It's a valuable discussion.
AYESHA HASSAN: Actually, Constance Ayesha Hassan on behalf of the International Chamber of Commerce and its basis initiative it is a comment. First of all, I wanted to say that global business welcomes this dialogue about principles and it is an example of how the IGF continues to promote the development of the multi stakeholder model. It is also an example of how each year the IGF continues to build on the discussions from the previous years. The principles have been discussed in workshops and other events but it is now part of the main session on taking stock and the way forward. This is an important evolution.
When we listen to the range of internet or multi stakeholder principles that are emerging in various forums and processes and countries and from stakeholder groups, I think that there is room for further exploration of where there may be genuinely supported multi stakeholder principles in the context of internet governance that would get general support. So I just wanted to express on our behalf that this is a dialogue that we welcome and we look forward to furthering it in the preparatory process in the IGF next year. Thank you.
MS CARBLANC: Thank you very much, Ayesha, for that. If there is no other intervention, I think I am going to give the floor to Nermine who will move the discussion forward towards perhaps impact on action. Thank you.
MS EL-SAADANY: Thank you so much, Anne, and good morning ladies and gentlemen. Actually my part to raise the question on how the so mentioned principles could be compiled and how the IGF as a platform could be used for that.
Indeed, the internet governance has witnessed several important milestones since its initiation during the WSIS starting by defining the term itself, followed by identifying the issues pertaining to internet governance and following agreeing on formation of the Internet Governance Forum that we are having right now.
Today, we have a group of principles proposed by different stakeholders to act as a Code of Conduct on the usage of internet. Some view this as sort of regulation to the internet itself. In order to pave the way for our discussion and how to relate those principles to our forum, I think it is always better to remind ourselves of some key issues describing the internet from its beginning.
I believe it should be maintained as well. First, internet was born as non regulated media that served the globe. As such, when we tried to address issues related to its governing principles or Code of Conduct, then it is always good to note that what started global should remain global. Internet has never been regulated as well. It was rather a self regulated platform with a basic consensus within of sharing, collaborating, exchanging knowledge among all involved stakeholders.
Third, internet is based on multi stakeholder principles where all relevant stakeholders are to work together, each in his respective role. Therefore, no one entity could lead on its own. That is why the flexibility and non binding nature of the Internet Governance Forum allows it to freely incubate and exchange ideas around the governing principles in a way that could help materialising them in the future.
This week we had two interesting workshops: one tackled the issue of the output of Internet Governance Forum, and the other one poses the question of multi stakeholderism, whether or not it has flow within or it is the good model that we can adopt forever and ongoing.
If there isare someone from those two workshops, number 145 and 85, please anyone. Izumi, yes, please on the output of the Internet Governance Forum.
IZUMI AIZU: Good morning everyone. I am the moderator of session number 85. That is called IGF or the future of the IGF.
We started the brief summary of the chair of the CSTD working group on the improvement of IGF, Peter Major who is the chair of this session as well, that he made a brief summary of the final report before the audience that is now tabled on the General Assembly of the United Nations. It can be voted any time by now.
The report, which I was also a member of for about an 18 month exercise, comprised of five parts: first, the shaping of the outcome of IGF meetings; the second one is working modality that is including overall preparatory process as well as working with MMA or MAG and strengthening the secretariat. No one really argued again these areas in a way.
The third part is the funding of the IGF. That is the core issue and we had a great debate and difficulty to reach the consensus of the report. Peter summarised that the encouraged increased voluntary financial contribution was the first point we agreed and the second one is enhanced accountability and transparency. The fourth one is a (inaudible) participation and capacity building and the fifth one is linking IGF to the other internet governance related entities.
Peter left with one suggestion or proposal that MAG will create a working group with the MAG to implement these recommendations.
Then we had four speakers of the member of the working group: Wolfgang Kleinwächter, Melvi Kutama from the Finland government, Markus Coomer from ISOC, and Parminder for IT for Change in India.
They also share the take ups from the working group exercise and most stressed was the importance of multi stakeholder dimension which was interesting in the CSTD working group because CSTD is a UN framework or UN body and we had to work within that framework. Unlike the IGF, which is on culture the UN system but not within the UN system, we had several constraints in the beginning. However, we somehow with a heated debate and stuff we got a close sort of working modality of the multi stakeholder to the IGF.
As for the main question, the quo vadis, on the future of IGF, all agreed that IGF is somewhat in the competor environment now after seven years but preserved their multi stakeholder nature and that's the way to go.
Also there was some expression of disappointment that IGF didn't really work to the expectation and that is why we may need to improve, especially there was not a balanced participation from the developing countries or between those developed and developing.
Now, there was general agreement with the report about the outcomes, that we need more concrete outcome for going forward which sounds not too problematic this time but it was in the beginning of the IGF, as one panellist pointed out, what was seemingly okay to discuss now was a kind of a taboo seven years ago, something like the so called enhanced co operation or even the CIRs.
About creating the working group, there were two proposals. One is to implement the recommendations. Another proposal was made for the working group for the enhanced co operation but there was no real concrete consensus about that as we all know.
For the funding, we have also a good debate with the floor. One school of thought is RB, others EB. "RB" is within a regular budget of the UN system and from the floor as well the one representative who is a UN official responsible for the Arab IGF suggested there could be some paths to bring this into the UN system and make it within a regular budget.
Others, especially from the industry or private sector, pointed out that the danger of capture, that if it is within the governmental system that it might be captured somehow by the governments.
From the other side, that if we are to continue the funding system and rely on industry, then there might be another capture captured by the big corporations. Again, there was no real consensus but we all see that there is a need to increase the fund. That was, I think, the consensus.
I think I will stop here. There are many things left that we couldn't really discuss within the time allocated and I invite any other members of the group or in the workshop if you have other complementary opinions. Thank you very much.
MS EL-SAADANY: Thank you. Do we have someone from workshop 1? You have the floor, sir.
CARLOS AFFONSO: Thank you. My name is Carlos Affonso from Getulio Vargas Foundation, Brazil. I am reporting back from workshop 145: threats to multi stakeholderism, what are the main problems and how can we solve them. So, in the interests of time, as we are running a little bit late, I will be very, very short since the report back from the other workshop I think make these comments very, very I would say in complementary and in addition to what Izumi has already mentioned.
So the workshops threats to multi stakeholder, what are the main problems and how can we solve them proposed a debate on multi stakeholder government as a concept and then addressed how it is working in practice. We focused on some experiences and internal, as well as external threats, to its fulfilment. The panellists have addressed how multi stakeholder governance is paramount for the fostering of many principles of internet governance, like representation, participation, accountability, responsibility, transparency and efficiency, and the debate focused on how multi stakeholder can prevail in a scenario in which currently we have increasing threats to its fulfilment either internally and externally.
Internally, there was some language in the discussion on the lack of support to the very organisation of the ENO IGF event, improving and enabling the IGF Secretariat maybe one of those threatens that end up being highlighted during the discussion.
Externally, other fora have been formed and engaged in the discussion of internet governance in a no multi stakeholder fashion falling short in the task to include all stakeholders in an equal manner to the discussion. In this regard, it is important to mention that both governmental representatives and the panel from Brazil and United States agreed with the idea of advancing the creation of a multi stakeholder working group on enhanced co operation.
In the end, if we want to protect multi stakeholder governance, it was quite clear by the end of the discussions that we need to scrutinise exactly what it that we are protecting. It is time to reconsider and revive the concept and practice of multi stakeholder governance. That was the goal of the workshop and the organisers would like to thank the organisation of the IGF and hope the conversation will continue to foster the understanding and the relevance of a multi stakeholder internet governance. I would like to invite the panellists of this workshop that happen to be around the room, if they want to, to make additional comments on this very short description of what we discussed yesterday. That is it. Thank you.
MS EL-SAADANY: Thanks Carlos.
Since are still in the principal part and before I open the floor for statements or opinions, there was one round table in the morning today about Human Rights and I assume Human Rights is one of the basic principles that are being discussed. I see Johann among the participants and I would like to call upon him to give us some brief on the round table.
JOHANN: So thank you very much. My name is Johann Halemborg. I work with the Foreign Affairs Ministry in Sweden. I am reporting back from a round table meeting we had this morning on Human Rights. This was the first round table on Human Rights in the IGF and the purpose was to wrap up the main Human Rights issues that have been discussed during the IGF this year and also give some proposals for the future. This was done through multi stakeholder discussions this morning. The event was arranged by APC with some minor assistance from my government.
We have two observations and we have seven proposals. Freedom of expression and threats to the internet users was a common thread in a great number of workshops throughout the IGF. This reflects the fact that freedom of expression on line is increasingly under threat in many countries in the world and this has been evident during the IGF.
The resolution in the Human Rights Council on Enjoyment of Human Rights On line has proven to be a very useful foundation when integrating a Human Rights perspective in the IGF discussions.
The second observation is starting with a quote from Vin Cerf that Human Rights are in the DNA of the internet; so, therefore, the importance of the access to the enjoyment of Human Rights on line is important.
This is access not only to the infrastructure but, more importantly, access to the content on the internet. There have been a lot of workshops this year on blocking, et cetera, so this perspective has been a main theme in the Human Rights discussions of the IGF.
The role of the business sector in keeping the network open and accessible has also this year been highlighted.
We had a few proposals for the coming work of the IGF. We believe that there is a need to ensure freedom of expression also during the IGF and there are several aspects that need to be taken into account, including in the organisational arrangements of the IGF itself.
Secondly, we appreciate a lot that many local activists participated in this year's IGF. However, we believe that IGF proactively could create a platform for local Human Rights activists; so this is a suggestion.
Another proposal mentioned was perhaps that the IGF could institute an award for particularly courageous Human Rights activists and defenders on line.
The third proposal is to exchange best practices on how Human Rights are implemented on line in various countries to close the gap between the big Human Rights principles that runs internationally and national laws and national implementation.
The fourth proposal is to address the responsibility of intermediaries from a Human Rights perspective more effectively in the IGF. A recent report by Special Rapporteur Frank La Rue could be an important source of inspiration in this context.
Fifthly, we believe that more workshops are needed on the relationship between the technical community and the Human Rights community. So we need more discussions on how the technical solutions to the internet affect enjoyment of Human Rights. This is something that had been emerging this year but we need to see this coming more forcefully in the coming IGFs.
Sixth proposal: we need to explore how the IGF discussions can feed into the Human Rights fora. There is no link currently between the discussions here and the Human Rights forums that exist. This is not only the UN but also in other places. A proposal could be to next year have feeder workshops on this issue.
The seventh proposal was that the round table on Human Rights was a useful venue and that such a round table should be held also in the coming IGFs. Thank you very much.
MS EL-SAADANY: Thank you so much and I would like to open the floor now for discussion. I would like to remind you as well that this is your part where we can have your input so that we can articulate the messages that we want to have out of the discussions during the annual meeting, this meeting of the Internet Governance Forum.
The floor is open. Anyone? In order to trigger the discussion as Parminder has done earlier, maybe I would like to recall what we have discussed so far.
We have seen, for example, Wolfgang giving a notion that the MAG could have a role in articulating messages or combining the principles on internet governance that we discussed elsewhere and we have Alejandro saying that the MAG is not like the platform to do this kind of thing.
What do you think the Internet Governance Forum could do for compilation of internet governance principles and whether or not do you agree that these principles could be combined on a global level?
PETER MAJOR: Thank you. Getting back to Wolfgang's proposal, I seem to have heard that he was just proposing a compilation and not an evaluation, not a proposal on its own that he doesn't really want to come up with something which is a kind of definitive legal text. So in case the MAG is interested, a working group in the MAG is interested to do this work, a compilation and find the commonalities within the different principles, I can see no harm in that. If I have the MAG let me reflect on the working group on the improvement of the IGF as well. I would like to emphasise one point about this working group and this is that it was a multi stakeholder working group. Those of you who have been attending meetings in the UN in the intergovernmental environment would probably appreciate the fact that there was one working group which was a real multi stakeholder where all the participants were given the floor on equal footing and all the ideas, all the proposals were considered seriously and were taken in egalité. So I think that was the one of the main result of this working group and this is kind of just showing an example for the future in case a similar working group is being set up for the enhanced co operation. Thank you.
MS EL-SAADANY: So we have Constance, then Anne.
MS BOMMELAER: Thank you very much. I will be very brief. We've talked about principles and what the way forward working with these principles. I very much like to Anne Carblanc's terminology compendium instead of compilation. I think in terms of finding common ground that would probably be the adequate terminology.
In any case, I think this echos the comment from civil society this morning, this exercise and this is critical, need to be done in a multi stakeholder environment, perhaps the MAG, perhaps another group, but in any case this should not be purely solely intergovernmental. Thank you.
MS CARBLANC: Perhaps everybody said what they had to say in the first part of the session. I am disappointed to see that nobody I taking the floor but I would just like to say that if the IGF does not offer a platform for all stakeholders to at least send inform everybody about these sets of principles which organisation will do it? The second point is that Human Rights are very important but there are other aspects also, other perspectives including economic perspective which leads also to economic growth but also to social welfare and increasingly we hope to well being.
If eventually an initiative is taken to produce a compendium that mean gather all these sets of principles the OECD will be happy to participate. Thank you.
MS EL-SAADANY: Bertrand?
MR DE LA CHAPPELLE: I would like to remind us all that the last IGF in Nairobi we had a session on taking stock and the way forward that I had the privilege to co moderate with Janet and this issue of proliferation of principles had already emerged and there were significant discussions during the IGF in Nairobi regarding how to handle this proliferation of principles.
There was a very strong agreement at the time that such putting the different principles together or close to one another and triggering a discussion among the different actors on what can be done with it, was a general agreement. The question we are addressing today is how to do it best because we didn't define a procedure last year and, therefore, things have continued to evolve, the discussions about principles have grown positively I think but we don't have a mechanism and what is at stake here is how to move forward in a cautious but useful manner. The term compendium seemed to represent at least the first step and there are various actors who may diverge on the ultimate goal of integration or development of another type of document. However, I see a certain number of milestones and natural time frames that could help structure the discussion.
In February there is the WSIS plus 10 session organised by UNESCO and immediately afterward will be the consultations and the MAG meeting.
The compilation of principles that we are talking about as was mentioned before by Ann I think has already in part been done, I know that Civil Society and internet governance causes has already identified a certain number. It doesn't take very long for one person that could be seconded by whatever actor may want to do so to prepare for February in a very informal manner such a compilation. Let us not make it I would say an exercise excessively complex. It may not be complete by February and it may even be an ongoing compilation sorry, compendium because there will be new principle but if by February we have a reasonable set of declarations, sets of principles and if the WSIS plus 10 session at UNESCO allows for one session to discuss those principles, co organised maybe by the different institution then the MAG will be in an excellent position to decide how it want to move forward afterwards.
So that is just a suggestion and I wonder whether it is not getting in the pragmatic zone instead of trying to solve the problem in a philosophical way.
MS EL-SAADANY: I think I see Parminder.
PARMINDER SINGH: Thank you, Nermine, for giving me this mic for the third time but I wanted to give a suggestion for the process because I do think that this space should be doing something on principles my problem was specific and I will come to the problem of MAG working good but the positive suggestion first. I think we should have a round table on internet principles in the next IGF. I on behalf of the dynamic coalition on internet rights and principle offer to help organise that round table. It is even possible that when we give out a call we say that we want to focus the next IGF in some kind of principle building environment and that goes out when we are describing the nature or the next IGF, probably it name the call goes out and focus around the round table and I encourage more workshops around this thing and then create involvement in which this talk becomes very mature and then that is a specific proposal for the process to go ahead.
I should again insist on the earlier comment which Dr Mayor did mention something about that the problem I that a working group of MAG was a specific proposal and I repeat was put to the working group on IGF. It is a part of three or four specific proposals. It was not accepted. It was rejected under the chairmanship of Dr Mayor and I think we should specifically find a reason why that recommendation would be gone beyond. I think the process is is, as I say, which is from the bottom up. Thank you for giving me attention.
MS EL-SAADANY: Thanks, Parminder. Theresa you have the floor.
THERESA SWINEHART: I just wanted to say that I think this has been an incredibly useful dialogue it also builds on last year's dialogue that Bertrand had alluded to and highlighted. I think we have a very good opportunity leading into the open consultations in February. The dialogues at the WSIS plus 10 as well the upcoming MAG meeting and as a MAG member I certainly look forward to having this dialogue and also within the MAG on how to move this process forward in a very good way. We have reached a good cusp of discussion and it is time to reach that next phase now. Thank you.
MS EL-SAADANY: Thanks, Teresa. I think I would agree with you. We have been discussing for seven years now about Internet Governance Forum during the annual meetings as well around annual meetings in side events or round tables or whatever regarding internet governance at large and I think this is a maturity point in time that we can move forward and take our next steps. With this would like to pass the floor to our moderator Peter to start the third part of our session. Thank you so much.
PETER MAJOR: Thank you Nermine, thank you Ann for the excellent second part.
The take away from this second part to me is that there was some proposals to create some new tasks for the multi stakeholder advisory group but we shall come back to that at the end of the session. It is the third part what is the way forward and the facilitator will be Avri Doria and Vin Cerf. The floor is yours.
MS DORIA: Thank you. Okay welcome to the way forward. Now one of the thing that has come up in the discussion so far I the fact that the IGF evolves. It has been continuously evolving since the beginning and in fact if one were to look back at some of the discussions we had at Athens one would not recognise the IGF we have today and it could not have been imagined at the IGF in Athens that we would be having some of the discussions we have today.
So when we're looking at the way forward there really are two separate dimensions to that discussion. The discussion in terms of the IGF itself and the discussion in terms of the substance of the IGF what we're talking about, what we will be talking about.
In terms of the IGF itself, when we look at the CSTD and it recommendations and we really must look at them and we must look at implementing them, it is important to realise that the CSTD when it was thinking about its recommendations was talking about an IGF that was already two years old and so it made recommendations very much in a context of that.
When looking at the General Assembly and its decision on those and it is perhaps modification of those, it is important to remember that it is not a multi stakeholder body.
I think that it is important that we as moving forward take the CSTD recommendations into account but I think it important we do not treat them as the end all and be all of what we may do. They give us mandates this give us recommendations for moving forward, they to not give us prohibitions about what we can or cannot do.
I think it very important that when the MAG begin its consultations and begin talking about how to take the issues before it and move forward, it really does look at the full range of possibilities that have been recommended in a bottom up manner at this IGF inbetween.
I think, for example, the notion that constantly comes up of how do we continue working between IGFs so that the MAG isn't just a programme committee talking about what we will talk about next year, that we have dynamic coalitions that are truly dynamic and continue to work through the year on coming up with messages and recommendations.
In terms of substantive issues, we've moved beyond the days when we could not talk about critical internet resources and we do it all the time. We've moved beyond the days of not being able to talk about Human Rights and we had a meeting where Human Rights was really one of the prominent substantive issues, especially dealing with freedoms and security. I foresee that the way forward include further development of these themes of that discussion and that certainly came up in the discussions we've had so far.
Other things that have been recommended in terms of way forward I finding way of working continuously to discuss these things as we go on.
It important finally before I pass it on to look at some of the statements that were made at this IGF in defence of freedoms, in defence of the freedom of speech in freedom after speech and it a very important role that the IGF fulfils in those freedoms that we must move forward with.
I will now turn it over to Vint in terms of his views on that.
VINTON CERF: Thank you very much Avri. Good morning everyone. A random thought possibly an unRuthy one has occurred to me just in the last moment one and I am thinking Peter I hope that this will not be mistaken but I think the MAG should belong to the IGF and not to the CSTD despite the structural origins of this institution it feels like we should be in charge of what we are about as opposed to someone telling us what to do. I like Avri's observation that having been mandated to X that should not mean that mandated not to do not X. So Peter I hope that I haven't offended anyone but it just occurred to me that if we're going to do anything then we had better be in charge of what we are about.
Let me begin by making some observations. First of all, with regard to this 7th IGF, the UN staff and the IGF Secretariat with the assistance of the Azerbaijani hosts have accomplished a lot with very little resource.
I conclude that we must find a way forward to increase the reliability of the resources available for future IGF meetings. I want to commit myself publicly to finding ways to increase private and public sector engagement and support for the IGF. That is an action item.
Second, the IGF meetings are rich in content and diversity, they are vigorous in thought provoking debate this one was no different but we are not leveraging the accumulated wisdom of the observations of participants as well we should. A project to catalogue archive and curate the cumulative documents including the transcripts of all the IGFs is called for. I am committed to working with like minded participants to achieve a sustainable archive and data mining capability to inform future IGFs and to assess historical trends. There is already evidence of some of this kind of work being done by some of the people participating in the IGF.
The question is providing a framework and adequate platforms to accomplish that goal.
Third it seems clear that more can and should be done to draw attention to the problems that are surfaced at the IGF in discussions here and in between IGF meetings. This theme has come up more than once. We meet one a year in this global form and I think work needs to happen in between. So to this end we should consider tasking and staffing the MAG or a MAG like working party to analyse the issues that have been raised and to assess whether progress is being made. This work could include specific observations derived from IGF deliberations and speculative suggestions in appropriate for appropriate fora. So the question I are the issues that have arisen deserve do the issues that have arisen deserve attention by other bodies besides our own and which ones might they be the working group might then produce not only observations about where those issues could be addressed but could at the beginning of the next IGF report on progress that has been made.
I am concerned that we don't look at our own progress and assess how well we are achieving our objectives.
Fourth observation it seems important to test the idea of dynamic coalition efforts that continue between the annual IGF meetings. So perhaps some of the dynamic coalitions formed during this IGF can attempt to engage during 2013 in remote or even face to face interaction making use of on line tools to further their work.
5th observation: this IGF has had its predecessors has reaffirmed the vital utility of multi stakeholder exchanges that benefit from candour without ford attempt to reach consensus. The IGF process should draw upon a broader range of participants from all stakeholder sectors especially from Latin and Central America, Africa and Asia. Incentives and facilitating steps are needed to achieve this objective.
6th the IGF should institute a self evaluation process for improvement and I think the work of the CSTD working group is an example of that.
Last observation I just a footnote but it occurs to me that there is great power in loose coupling and informality and so one thing we should be very careful about is adopting practices and principles that are overly restrictive and somehow inhibit our ability to explore possibility.
So I will stop there Avri and I think we should now find out what other people have to say about the way forward.
MS DORIA: So now the programme has two sections in it before we come to a close and the first section basically I am going to invite the facilitator from the previous two section they have done good evaluations of taking stock and now basically inviting them to sort of give us their notion of what is their message for for the way forward, how within the specific realms that they've been discussing that they've been working on do they recommend that we move forward. Then we will open the floor to the rest of you to sort of give us your messages in terms of how we move forward and I really hope that people will sort of phrase these in messages for how to move forward less evaluative on what we have done but how they think that this can progress, how we can take the IGF and move it towards meeting more and more goals that we all have.
So were I guess I would like to ask Bertrand if you can give us the messages for moving forward that you would like to give.
MR DE LA CHAPPELLE: Thank you very much Avri. It is all difficult to synthesise but I would like to do it around two legs as was suggested: one around the substance and themes that I feel have emerged that can help move forward and the second thing about the IGF itself.
I have three quick themes. One: that we have already addressed but I think has emerged as an extremely important one is this discussion about principles and the way forward that is emerging, I think, became from the different elements that have been mentioned this morning is to in any case include almost already in the programme of the IGF in Indonesia a session dedicated to this issue and that in any case the WSIS plus 10 meeting at least in UNESCO is another opportunity to explore this and discuss this on the occasion of the MAG and that ideally if goodwill is being proposed maybe in this very session to help do this compendium for the February meeting, this would be a wonderful way forward and operational.
The second thing is as we said the discussion about enhanced co operation has progressed. It is slow and that the thing that has been discussed is the distinction between enhanced co operation and enhanced co operations in the plural.
One of the major roles in my view of the IGF is to help catalyse issue had stakeholder networks that can work between the IGF and its next meeting. The whole debate about whether the IGF should have working group or not become moot if the way people organise their discussions in between provides them with a very easy way to report at the next IGF and they organise their whole balance and the IGF participants will evaluate whether this initiative are sufficiently multi stakeholder sufficient efficient et cetera.
But, moving towards enhanced co operations, in the plural, is important in my view and I hope that the working group, if there is a working group that I set up for this year CSTD will address this issue and that this working group more importantly will be multi stakeholder.
Finally, I would like to highlight something that as many of you know is dear to my heart but I was pleased to see the confirmation of the importance of the jurisdictional dimensions of issues that we're facing and one expression that emerged in one of the workshops that I participated in or attended in is the notion of the danger of a jurisdictional arm's race whereby all actors and all governments in particular very legitimately to exercise their sovereignty develop principles, norms and rules that may be not compatible and may introduce conflict of jurisdiction.
The IGF is a remarkable place as has been demonstrated this week, to help the different actors understand where the others are going and to make sure that instead of having to harmonise ex post very diverse patchworks of legislations, the different governments, companies and Civil Society actors have the opportunity to discuss in advance.
These were three substantive teams. I have likewise a few comment on the IGF itself. In the second or third iteration of the IGF I used the expression that the IGF was just like a ship slowly getting out of the harbour and trying to avoid two big rocks one has excessive formality the other one excessive informality.
The IGF has gone out of the harbour somehow after seven years and its new challenge in terms of path to chart is not formality or informality, it is institutionalisation or not. Not too much institutionalisation not turning into a organisation is not what is needed. On the other hand the current situation of probably insufficient support and structure is harming the potential to move in the right balance. I would like to make just a few points in that regard.
The first thing is that, the attempt to drive the ministerial declaration in the pre event and the difficulty of this exercise should be a reminder of how hard it is to even consider drafting things in a large format.
Therefore, I would suggest that for the next IGF at least, the reporting format to facilitate messages would be based on having individual Rapporteurs for each workshop different from the organisers that would be explicitly tasked with producing half page bullet points to be issued immediately at the end of the IGF.
So that there is a compilation of very short messages for each workshop.
The second thing is, the MAG will have and should have a stronger role in shaping the agenda. In particular instead of making a call for workshop proposals that could come later, it should start with a call for themes and issues and use its first meeting for further on line discussion to aggregate the themes and clusterise them, so there can be calls for feeder workshops and calls for workshops after a skeleton of agenda is being designed. The proliferation of workshops is remarkable but there clearly still is, are too many and this is a problem we have struggled with. It is the duty and the responsibility of the MAG to find a way and address this issue and the solutions are available.
Finally on the structure of the IGF itself, it is a testimony to both the dynamic of the multi stakeholder principle and the resilience of the very small sector particularly Chengetai that the IGF is still functioning with this limited amount of resources, it is remarkable but it is not sustainable. We are in the famous catch 22 situation, whereby the lack of funding does not allow for the recruitment of an executive secretary and as long as there is no visibility on the this, the funding doesn't come.
We have an urgency for the Indonesia meeting and I wonder some initiatives of secondment not supersede Chengetai but to deal with some elements of the preparatory process to Indonesia could not be done and in fact those are willing to do so, it would be wonderful.
The other problem we have is the MAG has functioned without the chair. It used to be the special adviser of the Secretary General of the United Nations. For various reasons the current situation is we have function, the MAG has functioned without a specific chair. I am raising the question of whether there is any way forward that would allow with an appropriate procedure and I can imagine it is difficult, that would allow the MAG itself to designate it's own chair and whether this would be useful for the process and my final point is related to the overall WSIS plus ten procedure.
We do not know what the format of the event in 2015 is going to be but I just want to highlight 2 points. It is extremely important to take stock of all the progress that has been made during those 7 years and to make sure that whatever happens in 2015 is a real progress from the format we had in 2005 going back to the type of structure and procedures of preparation that we had would not be acceptable and I just want to remind all of us, we already have 3 meetings at least for 2015. There will be an IGF; there will be a CSTD meeting and there will be a WSIS forum. Do we really need an additional meeting or is there a way to combine them and to make sure that the celebration of the tenth anniversary of the WSIS declaration of Tunis, is the declaration we have achieved real progress in the multi stakeholder processes.
Thank you very much.
A DORIA: Thank you Bertrand, would you have any messages on moving forward?
MR AL SHATTI: Yes, on the themes issue I would like to see the future of IGF discussing the internet as a transformation, a social and analytical transformation to, for the public and towards users. The internet is user centric and the users creativity and innovation that contributed most to the growth of the internet that we are witnessing today. This growth has reflected into opportunities and jobs that are created digital and knowledge economies, these are all due due to user creativity and innovation, so we have witnessed classical boundaries that have been crossed. We have witnessed attempts to cross boundaries and it has failed. We have realised that the innovation and the creativity of users doesn't have borders.
So rather than limiting or creating limits on that, we better create an environment that allows us to expand further. So.
I so I would like future IGF, to discuss tool and social change that is on the themes issue.
On the IGF itself, I would like to see the global IGF more engaged with original and national IGFs. I think many regional IGF's can contribute or feed themes and issues into the global IGF so, I would like to have a better engagement of a better process of engagement between the global IGFs and the original IGFs that would be an issue to see how we can reflect it on the global agenda.
A DORIA: Thank you Qusai, Ann would you like to go next and give us your messages for the way forward, thank you.
A CARBLANC: On the themes I support what cue say said about the economy and social aspects which are all important and the human rights for the internet. But, I in particular only sensitive to what every Doria and Vincents delivered the messages, I think the IGF needs to better document and understand where it started from and in which direction it wants or it can go both in terms of the firm itself and it's content.
This can only benefit each and all around the world. Thank you.
A DORIA: Thank you and... do you have any messages, Nermine.
N EL-SAADANY: I would like to start my comment on the regional and national levels I think one of the major impact that IGF has done through the previous 7 years was the creation of regional and national IGF's and I assume that the flow in from the regional workshops or meetings enriched the substance on the Internet Governance Forum itself on the global level. I would see a merit in tasking the regional IGF's that is now prevailing on the ground to come up with their own principles that suits their own culture and beliefs and then we can adopt together the IGF's as the platform for discussing those regional principles and come up with some sort of declaration or a global output for the principles that could govern the Internet Governance Forum and maybe feed in the goals for 2015 and hence we link with what is going on, on the ground in the governance forum and the development goals in couple of years.
As well I would see a merit in, in, examining the possibility of having an intercessional meeting in between the annual IGF, this could even happen remotely because I think the development through the year is very much rich and when we, when we meet together annually in 4 or 5 days the sense of information that we try to gather in 4, 5 days is maybe not enough and maybe an intercessional meeting could be of relevance in that work.
The funding of the secretariat I would continue supporting that there is definitely a need, huge need as well to support the secretariat despite the fact that they are doing a great job but we need to have it sustainable but we need to have power to respond in a better way to our needs for example having 6 languages website or intercessional meetings or whatever. I think the funding of the secretariat appointment of the executive coordinator and is key for the Internet Governance Forum an finally, here, food for thought I would like to pose maybe for our informal discussions later on, why do we not think together of a think tank group where we can discuss together, the collaboration on internet governance public policy issues, the Internet Governance Forum has been evidence of having an enhanced co operation in the process, I think the think tank could even further the, the efforts that have been done on enhanced co operation ground thank you.
A DORIA: Thank you, at this point we will be opening to the floor to hopefully those of you that have messages on the way forward and I will turn over the microphone to Vint to facilitate that particular section.
V CERF: The microphones are open and waiting. I see Professor Pisanti we are not hearing you.
MR PISANTI: It was simple but, my name is Alejandro, I would like to make a comment on.
Mr DE LA CHAPELLE: 's intervention, one.
MR PISANTI: I may have understood wrongly, so, ready to be corrected. Some of what you said seems to lead to declarations to summaries and to maybe no such thing? Okay? But I would want personally, warn personally against things that will lead to that, it will [microphone breaking un], it would take the IGF into the funnel of agreed text and we know that is a no go, that thank you.
V CERF: Thank you, this gentleman.
JEREMY MALCOLM: I neglected to introduce myself, Jeremy Malcolm from consumer international. In the earlier session we spoke about how the IGF can be a useful place for the restatement of principles of human rights we also need to be sure it is a place where we can freely exercise our human rights and in particular the human right to freedom of expression. In many of the workshops we found that oral discussions were very freely allowed and that there was very robust discussions for example there was an OSC workshop on freedom of the press in which there was open discussion of that issue both in Azerbaijan and elsewhere. But there were some stumbling blocks this yore, with regard to the distribution of written materials, it could be said that the secretariat had been a little overzealous in the enforcement of UN protocols of the written distributed materials. At first, the anti... postcards,... prevented from distributing and then later there were reports from civil society and in Azerbaijan that were prevented from being distributed.
The secretariat to its credit did later back down in regard to the postcards and admitted a mistake had been made in not allowing them to be distributed. But the civil society report from Azerbaijan is not allow dz to be distributed here. But one has to question whether there is any merit in that given that we are freely able to discuss things in workshops why can't we freely distribute reports that might have controversial content the rational that these reports identify particular countries and practices of the countries, but then again there have been reports such as the global informs society watch that identify practice of specific countries that have been freely allowed to be distributed at the IGF for many years. So what I think needs to be done, is to establish some written principles which will set out in clarity and detail what sort of publications can be distributed at the IGF and which ones cannot.
We should have some input into the formulation of the principles we should remember that the IGF is not a UN body as such. It is a meeting convened by the Secretary General and we have flexibility in terms of the structure of this meeting and the procedures that apply.
So I would call on the secretariat and the MAG to collaborate on the development of a draft statement which can be opened up for discussion by the IGF community as to how we can exercise our freedom of expression at the IGF not only orally but also in terms of the written materials that we exchange, thank you.
V CERF: Thank you very much, much to the point.
The gentleman over on my left, oh I am sorry, Mr Chairman.
CHAIR: The, could you please, to pass me the materials such as you stated was forbidden to, to distribute in Azerbaijan and if it is possible could you say which sources is you using to state that it was forbidden in Azerbaijan? Distribution of this material. Thank you.
V CERF: Thank you Mr Chairman.
V CERF: Ladies and gentlemen to my left.
, can you hear me?
KYLE SHULMAN: My name is Kyle, I am engage member of the internet community. I have a question I would like to pose, how do we build in input from local and regional processes to feed internet governance discussions? And inter participation in all these critical discussions it is vital that everyone participate in these discussions on principles for example.
V CERF: So let me just intervene and suggest that we might in fact make use of the kinds of computer based tools that seem to help us to do this in other contexts so that we can accumulate contributions coming from virtually anywhere, they plainly need to be organised so that is going to take some work, but at least we can obtain inputs I hope in a timely way. In the same way we had inputs on line during the course of the working group meetings.
Let me take the next I am sorry, who is that at the other? Yes, please?
CAROLINA AGUERRE: I am a lady. Carolina, from...
V CERF: I couldn't tell from your head set...
CAROLINA AGUERRE: I couldn't agree more from what [name inaudible] said today, I am very concerned about the legitimacy of the whole IGF process. I would like to move forward with the idea of the Internet Governance Forum to be a place where the agenda setting for the greater ideas problems and concerns that we have can be debated and discussed and, for that reason I think we need to develop a very, very good website, a tool that is a repository of the documents; everything that is discussed a tool that facilitates, I am concerned with how government officials for how they go to IGF in the first time, how difficult it is to get to discuss before, sometimes in the main sessions we have to go back and explain. I really think we should be working more in that. I think in main sessions we could make a trace for next year, what has been discussed in the main topics for the main sessions so we know how the, the IGF has evolved and how discussions have addressed different issues when they were critical or not critical maybe at some point rather than others.
So I think those are my contributions thank you very much.
V CERF: Thank you, it occurs to me that some other institutions like ICANN and the Internet Society have briefing sessions for people who have never been to those events before in order to introduce them to practices and procedures. Izumi
IZUMI AIZU: what I am saying is, good morning, thank you, my question was what if I speak in Japanese, can you understand? We are not under this languages there are many more languages than the UN languages, I am happy, I can talk with English and understand with you guys but I think we also have to remind the other folks of ore languages.
My name is Izumi, I am the co coordinator of the global Internet Society focus, it is a pleasure to be also on the MAG in some, I am the new MAG member and I have to finish my term for the... I will continue. What Jeremy said or pointed out for the rules for documents, I am saying what happened here or there. But for the future some clarification, very clear guidances and I think MAG should be responsible for that part as well to make no confusion, no misunderstanding but exercise free speech as we like to here at IGF.
Maybe it might be trivial but some of the more logistical size that we face, connection programmes or other things which I don't want again to go to details or blame games but again I think it is partly MAG's responsibility. We can't [inaudible] local host do the good job, that is not the way it should be, that is what I feel.
The future of IGF, I would like to say about Bertrand, I if I convey to, to convey to [name inaudible] who is responsible for the southern part of the IGF, I would like to hear from them if they are there. We don't have the special adviser for more than 2 years? As even though the UN General Assembly agreed to continue the mandate, so, I really think it is your job; their job that should be done immediately. It can't wait.
We have a number of excellent candidates perhaps on the podium and or maybe in this room, if not in this building so why not do a [inaudible] that I would like to ask the UN Secretary General perhaps. Then about the secretariat. Yes, Chengetai, without you and your staff we couldn't be here, I don't want to put all the burden to you, I would like much more support with the exec tiff coordinator immediately also. I would like to know why, why it is taking so long, under the transparency and openness, multi stakeholder it is kinds of taboo to say something sometimes. Sometimes we don't understand and I would like good accountability, explanation at least and move forward very strongly soon.
As for the MAG chair as Bertrand said, I think there is nothing prohibiting us from selecting the chair. Maybe instead of having one chair, I would like to propose perhaps two chairs, one from the south and one from the north, one from the east and one from the west; one from the government and non government; one male and one female.
I don't know, [inaudible] I think you can, you can come up with some answer to that or, anyway, we really need some leadership with MAG frankly speaking we didn't really have that good leadership so far and which I think related to some other issues we are facing. So, I think I call for urgent action at the UN level and those who the linkages who disappear, please push them thank you.
V CERF: Thank you, let me take the gentleman on the left.
FRANKUN SILVA NEDO: Thank you, I am sorry for picking up the phone again, I would like to commend the facilitators on the table for making it comprehensive and at the same time concise on the future.
There are two things I would like to, to concur on what is said by the facilitators, the first one is to ensure the sustainability of the IGF. Everybody here has already agreed that there are a lot of challenges for the future, that the IGF has a lot to contribute to establishing a presupposed to fostering the discussions of various, in various levels but nothing of this will be possible without financial sustainability.
Then again I could not agree more when mentions that we should seek sources of financing not only the sources should also be more the stakeholder. Brazil is one of the supporters financial supporters of IGF and when I mean Brazil, I do not mean the Brazilian government, [inaudible] from a multi stakeholder basis an I do not find words enough to encourage other parties to also find ways to help keeping IGF on a sound financial sustainable state.
The other aspect is the, the issue of how to compile and how to, how to take stock of all the knowledge that is produced during the IGF forums I mean this is a space where we have governments; we have academia, we have social society, private sector all contributing in a an open manner, we should not allow the open manner to be reflected in the lack of a formal or a way to, to make this knowledge available to everyone and to help make this knowledge be a help for the continuation of the process.
During the IGF in Rio, we made an effort to compile the information that was produced but that was many years ago, probably today we would have more digital tools to allow this knowledge to be systematised and be used in favour of the process and in favour of all the stakeholders.
Thank you very much.
V CERF: Thank you very much, the lady over on my right.
HEATHER DRYDEN: Thank you very much. And good morning everyone, my name is Heather dry den, I work for the Canadian department of industry, I am also a member of the MAG and I just wanted to make a couple of points drawing on the exchanges we have had so far. First of all, in terms of, of hiring a UN special adviser and executive coordinator for the secretariat. We would agree that these are priorities and do have an impact of the sustainability of the IGF and in terms of the discussions that have taken place regarding principles this had been quite an interesting exchange and one that we have touched upon at previous IGF's and we would agree that a compilation of the principles is a useful endeavour and it does seem important that there be a way to organise principles and we can make use of the technologies we have available to us to facilitate that happening and certainly I think it is worth underscoring that that should be done in an open and multi stakeholder way and would have the benefit of being able to acknowledge work happening in various organisations and places and that would include then taking in priorities that may exist in a particular region say and I think it is important to be able to, to depict that range of influences and thoughts about what are the principles that are most relevant to, to various parts of the world and and to acknowledge work taking place in different organisations or around those organisations, so thank you.
V CERF: Thank you very much Heather, the gentleman on the left.
IAN FISH: Good morning, my name is Ian Fish, from the UK, chartered institute for IT.
I would like to go back to what Vint said in his introduction, the need for all stakeholders to be involved in a multi stakeholder environment and gave an example of geography effect. As well as geography, this are sectoral considerations and also the considerations of access through language i.e, non English speakers and those are in order of difficulty. Geography is the easiest one to do. The other two are less easy, I would like to suggest there is a need perhaps for the enhanced administration of this IGF to take some measures to try and increase the combination of all those 3 things,.
V CERF: Thank you very much for your succinct suggestion.
ANDREA BECCALLI: Thank you, good morning, I am with ifla, what Bertrand said, I was thinking, the WSIS process from now until 2015, let me release to you what I recall, maybe someone else has more information, it is not easy to get information. I counted WSIS plus ten 2013, the UNESCO Geneva plus 10 event, in Paris, within this event, on internet governance on the UNESCO we just learned.
Then in May 2013 the WSIS forum at ITU. In 2014 we will have again at ITU the WSIS plus ten from too many plus ten, so the 2005 plus ten don't think makes 2014, but in the way of arranging things, that does make sense.
Then another WSIS forum in Geneva, then a big event probably in New York I am guessing, for the 2015 conclusion and in the meantime we have 3 IGF. So I everybody speaks about convergence and here as just spreading around of events that should actually speak about the same things and gather the same stakeholders.
At the same time, if you go back into the WSIS process we have seen that amongst the 3 UN leading agencies, UNDP got completely lost, disappeared.
UNESCO for other issue, but weaker and weaker in the following years.
ITU is still a solid financial and supportive group of member states. Most likely will take the lead of these, these series of event.
I think it is really important to see how the IGF actually can be a catalyser for a big conclusion in the 2015 event when you bring things together and you saw how the multi stakeholder process was extremely successful here and was developed let's say in a way outside the UN, 3 main leading agencies, IDP, UNESCO, you can say they mostly failed in the multi stakeholder implementation as described in the Tunis agenda.
Then the last thing about the secretary and the Chairman of the MAG. We all know that, that is agreed work in the UN, we all know that for how much we pay the multi stakeholder approach is a matter of member states pushing the UN to get over this grid lock. So I think it is time to acknowledge that. There was a recent change of the head of UN, there [inaudible] that will be interesting that the governments are most active into the IGF that really care about that. Then they have to play the game in New York and without keeping phoning each ore and trying to find out a solution, thank you.
V CERF: Thank you very much for those reminders, gentleman on the left.
CEDRI WACHHOLZ: Hello, I am Cedric Bauhaus I work for UNESCO I wanted to take the floor before really, but I will respond directly to the person that just spoke. I think UNESCO is extremely present including at this event and I do not, I would politely disagree with this assessment I would with the ideas just mentioned we have had several events organised here. We have launched 2 specific publications which were very much applauded that we had more than a hundred people at the first session of freedom and privacy publication launch. Two hundred copies were gone in one and a half days,... will be present and will continue to be.
On the question of different parts together you and also responding to to proposal, which Bertrand dela Chapelle mentioned before.
Mentioned the UNESCO, from 25th to 27th February 2013 and this review will on 28 February and first March will follow the IGF meetings of the open consultation and the MAG meetings so here you have a good example of how things can go to get, I mean back to back, let's put it like that.
There will be it is true, at the WSIS plus ten review also a UNESCO special internet event on UNESCO themes and this is also the, also the rather increasing interest of UNESCO in this domain and for the overall WSIS review process we have had on line consultations on the themes; on the framework and on the process with many contributions from many stakeholders and we will start next week with a submission of session proposals, I would invite a submission of session proposals, will be reviewed by multi stakeholder group, which seems to have support anyway. I am confident such a compendium should it exist by then, will be discussed in a session this way and agreed upon by multi stakeholders in the WSIS 2,000 review event, in Feb 2013.
V CERF: Thank you, any other comments from the floor? I would make oh yes, please, would you find a microphone please?
FARGANA ABDULLAYEVA: I am far Ghana, I am from Azerbaijan nation of national science, information technology institute. I won't say some words about useful orientation of IGF forum. Firstly I am very happy that this forum really hold in Azerbaijan, it is mean that our country participates in such important issue of internet.
At second this forum had been a very useful for us and for all participants of forum. In this forum we had, we heard were many interesting and progressive or also more type of points of view; many tasks which will be useful to participants and participants of forum.
In this case, I want to thank the, thank organisers and participants of forum for this wonderful opportunity to be among you.
Thanks for attention we will glad to see you in Baku again.
V CERF: Thank you very much. I am sure all of us hope to return. Are there any other comments from the floor? Please.
If anyone wishes to make a comment may I suggest that you queue at the microphones so that we speed this up? Yes, yes, we are running out of time. I think this will have the be perhaps the all right at this point we have one just a moment please we have one.
Excuse me, could you stop for a minute? Thank you.
We have two people at the microphones, I am closing the microphones now because we are running out of time. So we take just these two and that is it. Okay, so now it is your turn, please go ahead. The gentleman over on my left first and then.
MARGIYONIS DARSASUMARJA: Thank you, good morning my name is marrow enough from internet on line for [inaudible] will be hold in my country next year and give opportunity to officially to... to [inaudible] to involve in discussion, I think there is a [inaudible] the part, the spread of the country who participate in the IGF. [inaudible] the government of Indonesia in IGF for quite long years for 3 or 2 years ago but there are can other countries that are [inaudible] like, in Vietnam, Thailand, lau,... we have actually a, Asia Pacific regional IGF of course but we don't have at [inaudible] at the level. My question is how to expand the spread of the country, the government and also civil society to involve in the IGF. If the IGF isn't present of all the country of the member of the UN, not all the member of the UN... [inaudible] to in the IGF but... in the IGF we will make the IGF more power you feel involving them in this discussion, it is important for other country, to bring them to discuss together in the IGF like this. Thank you very much.
V CERF: Thank you very much, we all hope for that objective. The gentleman on my right and the last speaker in this segment.
WOUT DE NATRIS: Thank you, I am reporting back on... workshop 87 we held a organiser workshop on critical infrastructure and cross border cooperation in case of cross border int dents an we had a consisting everything from governance, the EU, Council of Europe,... we debated basically what happened with industry, where law enforcement was able to help?
There is one concern here which I think maybe we need to think about for 2013 and beyond, there is almost no regulatory body or law enforcement at this conference, so what are the topics that would actually interest them to come and debate with the rest of, of the multi stakeholder community, so I think that is one.
We debated around one central theme that is, does the world need big internet 3G like the United Nations on the open sea treaty, and the vote in the Panel was 8 and a half to one half because there was one gentleman saying, I don't know really.
So that needs everybody doesn't want one. We came up with several recommendations which I think may feed into things for next year and I will try to sum up the main report once and thank you for your, for my time.
I think one main message was, there are so many laws out there, use the treaties and the laws that are around to the best of their ability and come up with best practices in the international realm from those treaties and laws which actually are out there.
The other one is to reach out and communicate to your other communities; be a connector to ore communities.
Capacity building that is a theme that has been talked about so much that I won't repeat it here. Also that set priorities through national security strategies because if the country does that, it will go for priorities where maybe now they are lacking.
Where they are now a lot of EU projects try and make them pan EU, there are countries that can benefit from the... coming out of projects.
Fund the capacity building that is also a comment that was made because capacity building is fine, if there are no funds then it won't happen.
I think one of the most important ones was: get out of your silos, everybody is at their own conference talking their own topics and then we come here together and everybody flies home again and do you actually make a difference?
So we need meeting places in the world people said where we can actually meet more often and debate the issues. That is I think once a year may not be enough. So could the IGF somehow organise subcommittees through the year in which people can actually meet and come up with the result or recommendations at the general meeting a year later.
So that is a new concept, for something maybe the community actually needs and as a last one, I think that is a very important message. The one gentleman from the regulatory body was that was present in the Panel was saying my it is getting so complicated. It is getting too complicated don't with acting for another year, three years because the technical difficulties amount to enormously he said.
So that I think is an important message to people who need to start acting and that sums up the recommendations from my workshop and I thank you for the time given to me.
V CERF: Thank you very much for your concise report. I can't help observing, if we keep the regulatories confused, maybe they will leave us alone. Mr Chairman I pass this over back to you.
PETER MAJOR: I assume that you don't want to make
V CERF: I think the people here have exhibited enormous patience throughout this. I think we should set our conclusions.
PETER MAJOR: In that case, let me conclude this meeting, that it was a very successful to my mind successful session. We had summed, summarised well what has happened during the IGF here and naturally, there was some comments concerning some negative sides but there is always room for improvement and we are happy that we can improve and I am confident that this improvements will be there during the next IGF in 2013 in Indonesia.
During this discussions we have also mentioned that there are many workshops; we emphasised the importance of the dynamic coalitions and eventually the open forums.
It was my understanding that there has been some requests for mag to take on some tasks for consideration about principles; about enhanced co operation and implementation of recommendations in no way as a subordinate to the CSTD, but on its own independent way.
So there were cause for actions.
Let me take this opportunity to express my special thanks to Constance Bommelaer, for her dedicated work in organising this session. She was extremely efficient and I really thank her.
On this opportunity let me thank the organisers; ll, the secretariat and lastly but not least, the host country Azerbaijan for the excellent venue and organisations, even though hick ups but I think it is almost natural. I really thank you for your coming here to this session an contributing so extensively and I hope to see you next year in Baku.
Sorry, let me give the close to the chair to close the meeting.
CHAIR: It is my pleasure to thank all participants all the members who participated in this meeting I am sure that you, you get a lot of information about, about the regulation of internet and I will, I am sure also that this knowledge will help us to move ahead firstly to get best understanding of this principles and of the, how to better the regulate internet thank you very much for coming.
Chengetai Masango: Thank vow very much ladies and gentlemen, the closing ceremony is at 4 around this are still workshops going on.